Law: Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Section: XXXV,9(1),3(a)

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 161

(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXXV of 1997) [as amended by Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act (XX of 2022)]-------S. 9(1), Sr. No. 3(a)---Possession and transportation of narcotic substances--Appreciation of evidence---Contradiction in the statements of witnesses--Prosecution case was that the accused was found in possession of 230-grams baked charas---Complainant, in his deposition stated that on 17.07.2023, the appellant was overpowered and his personal search was conducted by him, as a result whereof, 230-grams of baked charas was recovered from his possession and he separated 20grams charas as representative sample and prepared the parcels---On the contrary, Investigating Officer deposed that he weighed the recovered charas, separated the representative samples and prepared the parcels---Such glaring contradiction in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution against the appellant was not trustworthy to inspire confidence, and it could not be relied upon and could not be made the basis for awarding a sentence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.(b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXXV of 1997) [as amended by Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act (XX of 2022)]-------S. 9(1), Sr. No. 3(a)---Possession and transportation of narcotic substances--Appreciation of evidence---Safe transmission of the recovered substance doubtful---Prosecution case was that the accused was found in possession of 230grams baked charas---As per prosecution version, after recovery of the alleged contraband material and separation, the representative samples were handed over to a Police Constable for its transmission to the Chemical Examiner, while his name was also appearing in the Forensic Science Laboratory Report, but neither the statement of said Police Constable was recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C nor he was produced before the Court as a witness, thus, inference could easily been drawn that the prosecution had failed to prove the element of safe transmission--As a result, the prosecution failed to prove that the sample parcels were handled carefully and sent securely---Said flaw on the side of the prosecution was enough…